1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the lower court, taking into account the circumstances in its reasoning, held that the articles against Defendant A posted in H8 falls under the “election-related report” under Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and Defendant A paid money and valuables to Defendant B through “the election-related report” corporation H.

On the ground that it should be seen, the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the provision of money or valuables related to the reporting of an election

In addition, the argument that there is an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the recognition of illegality in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged only by Defendant A as the ground for appeal, or by the court below as the subject of judgment ex officio.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the lower court, taking into account the circumstances in its reasoning, comprehensively held that all articles of Defendant A and articles of Articles 97(2) of the Act on Election of Public Officials constituted “report on election” as provided by Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and Defendant B received money and valuables from Defendant A and K in relation to reporting on election.

On the ground that it should be seen, the first instance judgment that found Defendant B guilty of all the facts charged in this case was affirmed.